I-10 Mobile River bridge: Look at low-build, no-build options

AL.com reached out to elected officials and business people on both sides of Mobile Bay to ask their opinions of the proposed I-10 Mobile River bridge.

(Herndon Inge III is a lawyer in Mobile.)

Has the proposed I-10 Mobile River Bridge been found the only alternative?

There has been a lot written about the need for another "Mobile River Crossing." For the moment, let's call it a "river crossing;" let's put aside another bridge, or another tunnel.

My office is less than 1,000 feet from the Eastbound I-10 approach to the Wallace tunnels, and I go under I-10 probably twice per day, to the bank or post office. I will admit that for a few hours, on Friday afternoons, traffic is usually slowed, but for too many reasons to list here. But not unlike I-10 West in Baton Rouge, I-65 N. approaching Birmingham or I-78/85 in downtown Atlanta, I-10 under the Mobile River is not one of country's top 100 traffic jams.

So do we need to spend a billion tax dollars for this bridge? Are there other alternatives? Will the planned bridge stop the traffic jams on Friday afternoons, even in the first five years after completion?

Now, anyone old enough to read this remembers our downtown even 10 years ago. Do you like the progress made in our downtown over the last decade? Do you like showing family and friends our historic districts? Isn't tourism also an industry, generating commerce?

Almost 50 years ago, in 1968, the U.S. Department of Transportation studied and found: "Highway transportation cannot be allowed to function apart from or in conflict with its environment. The potential for conflict between a highway and other personal and community aspirations, such as natural beauty, preservation of historic sites, cleaner air, general community, are greatest in America's densely populated urban areas.

"The question is not whether to preserve a historical site or to build a highway, but rather how does the DOT provide needed mobility and in the same process contribute to other important social goals, such as preservation of history sites .... An urban highway should be so located and designed as to enhance rather than destroy a city's best attributes .... Freeway should not encroach upon park land, playgrounds, squares, plazas or other open space preserves .... Highway location and design must consider the viewpoint of area residents .... Beauty in freeway design is a result of the sum total of carefully planned and sensitively handled elements. Freeways entering the city should, by their location and design, present each city in its most interesting light."

Are there less objectionable routes other than adjacent to our downtown?

Construction of this bridge is estimated to take 10 years. Do we have to suffer the resulting traffic interruptions and jams during construction -- right in downtown?

The Environmental Impact Study reports "no adverse impact" to historic properties. What about the potential for visual impacts, noise and vibrations to properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and on parks, squares, open spaces? What about the "constructive taking" of our "natural beauty" of downtown and Mobile Bay? What view will RSA buildings and hotels have of our "natural beauty"?

Is it worth it, worth a billion in taxes, worth the disruptions, worth the eyesore? What about the bridges and expressways torn down, or not built, in San Francisco, Seattle, New Orleans, Memphis, Portland, Fort Worth, Washington, D.C., Boston, Birmingham? Haven't we learned what DOT studied almost 50 years ago?

Over 30 years ago, a study found the only way to mitigate noise pollution is to replace all windows within eight blocks with triple-paned windows.

Is there really "no feasible prudent alternative" like Section 4(f) requires? Has ALDOT really made "good faith objectivity' in selecting a route like Section 4332 requires, and "in good faith" like the National Environmental Policy Act requires?

The International Downtown Association conference on Oct. 5, 2010, noted, "Trying to cure congestion by adding capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt."

There are "low-build" and even "no-build" options. Do we need a 2050 solution, or a 1950 bridge solution, over our Central Business District?